David Attenborough on God
   
140
votes
   
Submitted by chtierna
Comments (showing 10 of 90)
Someday, Sir David will no longer be with us. And I hope when that day comes, he goes to Animal Heaven and not Human Heaven, because he deserves it and so do they.
9  
written by StukaFox

and ... here we see.. the Attenborough , Taken outside of its normal Environment.. , in what can only be described as remarkable footage..
 35  
written by westy

Granted, I just promoted this and I understand this site has a very heavy atheist user base. Actually, it's the promoted, encouraged and abject hatred of anyone who is religious at all that has kept me away from here. I really don't argue religion, especially here. But I will just post my opinion on the content of this very short video since I happened by it. And I'm going to break it down as it happens.

The question in the beginning seems to be "Are you a religious man?" (when considering the wonders of nature etc). He answers "no". She then asks if it (again his experience with nature) has any philosophical meaning to him and he begins by telling her she hadn't asked him that. When, in fact, that's the question she's now actually asking. But he reveals that he has a particular problem with Christianity even though it was never specifically brought up. If the question is "How does your extensive background in observing nature impact your philosophical view of the world?" and the answer begins with "Well, I don't like Christianity". Then I think that's a problem. There's a skewed view coming from somewhere else that has nothing to do with the question being asked at all.

Then we go into this dramatically told story of the boy with a worm eating his eye. And he leans forward and thrusts this bullshit out trying to force it down her throat into meaning something. But it doesn't. I can tell you all sorts of stories. I know someone who was pushed in front of a subway train. Dead. There was one guy I walked passed in an alley that was being beaten to death with metal garbage cans. I personally have been shot at, electrocuted, stabbed, almost drowned under ice, poisoned, stitched up to the point where I was on a first name basis in the emergency room, fuck .. I should be a super hero .. or at least God's enemy number 1 .. but I don't think it works that way. Bad things happen to all kinds of people. It's a sad argument to say God doesn't exist because human suffering does.

In any event, this worm feeds on other things besides the human eye. Obviously. Or it would be extinct or we'd all be fucking blind. So this worm was not "made by God" to devour some child's eyeball. The same way HIV was not created by God to destroy the gays. It's nature. And someone like Attenborough should know that nature takes it's course without discrimination. It is VERY frustrating to hear him say "you believe it was created by God ... that God said "I will make a worm that can only live by eating/boring people's eyes". Even if you are a hardcore atheist this is utter shit.

He caps off his personal hatred of Christianity with "the Christian idea of a God who cares for each of us". And that the eyeball eating worm is incompatible with that. Well personally, I think his argument is already moot just from what I've said above but there is nothing ... regardless of whatever magic gumdrop land concept of Christianity that he has .. that says that people who follow the faith won't suffer.

If anything, everything about it tells you it is the path to more suffering.

In short, no chtierna. No, it wasn't Satan, it wasn't a punishment and no it wasn't some decree of God beyond our comprehension. The worm ate the eye the same way you eat the cow. Or the carrot if you're vegetarian. Or the way I eat my celery out of bloody mary most sunday mornings.
3  
written by burdturgler

I wear your downvote with honor ponceleon and look forward to your detailed and reasoned explanation.
3  
written by burdturgler

^ you clearly have never bothered to read the logic behind the problem of evil. As for a 'detailed and reasonable explanation' where is yours? that post did not refute anything.
Read this, and then tell me if what you just wrote is a 'reasonable' point of view
http://www.iep.utm.edu/e/evil-log.htm
http://www.iep.utm.edu/e/evil-evi.htm
4  
written by mauz15

"^ you clearly have never bothered to read the logic behind the problem of evil."

honestly that's insulting. Do you think I'm stupid? If I am stupid does it anger you or inspire you to enlighten me?
In any event all you've just offered is an insult and some air of unearned superiority.
hmm .. bad things happen to good people .. worms eat eyes .. also the sun will burn you .. not to mention fire

edit .. and now you have edited links into your post so I will edit my post to say this:
If YOU have something to say .. and not some links to other articles .. please share.

So people have an understanding of the time line of events here. The original post just said "^ you clearly have never bothered to read the logic behind the problem of evil."

And for the record what I wrote was in response to this video. A concept some people don't get here. But it's supposed to be the rule for commenting .. imagine that.
1  
written by burdturgler

Just because a person has not studied something does not make one stupid. Nowhere in my post was it implied that i doubted your intelligence, therefore you took my post completely wrong and assumed i was being pretentious. Well, you are wrong.

However, if you want to talk about the problem of suffering, it is necessary to have some knowledge about it. You also assume I am here to debate the question. I am not. If that is a problem, whatever. If you want to use the sources i gave you to help you polish your views better, great. If you want to ignore them, that's fine too.

That is all

Edit to below: I have already stated, that it was never my intention to debate the matter with you. My whole reason for posying was to point out a flaw, and provide links to help. Second, I don't want to clog the thread further with offtopic subjects. Finally, your statement about the links being bullshit w/o even reading them gives me the opinion that you are not even interested in exploring this thing. Which is more reason for me to not engage in a discussion about this.
2  
written by mauz15

How about you explain your point to me?
I took the time to lay out what I thought .. without just passing off links to other sites and someone else's bullshit.

It's funny the way you word things. For an asshole like you there's only two ways. I can learn (agree with) what you're saying .. or I can remain stupid and ignorant. Tough fuckin call. Guess I'll go for stupid for the time being.

And here is my edit after his edit
I see your edit and raise you one more ..
It is uncomfortable trying to conduct dialog this way ..
how about this. Why don't you make a point that has something to do with what I originally said, and we can go from there?
I mean you, not some links to things other people have said .. because I find it troubling that you will not answer me directly but instead accuse me continuously of being uneducated about the subject at hand. So either explain my "flaw" or do refrain from clogging this thread further. And in the interest of sanity STOP EDITING YOUR FUCKING POSTS.

Thanks.
-4  
written by burdturgler

>> ^burdturgler:
The question in the beginning seems to be "Are you a religious man?" (when considering the wonders of nature etc). He answers "no". She then asks if it (again his experience with nature) has any philosophical meaning to him


You are wrong. She first asks him: "are you a religious man?" and when Attenborough answers "no", she follows that up with "it doesn't have any philosophical implications for you?" not "does it have any philosophical impications for you?"

When Attenborough says "Well, it does have philosophical implications, and you haven't asked me that" he is correct: The interviewer implied that since Attenborough doesn't believe in God, then he has no philosophical views on nature.
 21  
written by mentality

I think you missed the point of his answer. She did ask, "are you a religious man" and his answer was no. She then asked if nature had philosophical implications which is a completely different question. Philosophy =/= religion and I think he answered it quite appropriately, though maybe with too much emphasis on it not being religious and not enough emphasis on the wonder of nature.

As for the worm, the argument makes sense. It was probably Loa loa filariasis which mature to adults in the eyes and under the skin of humans. If life evolved as he believes it did, then the worm makes perfect sense - a creature inhabiting and otherwise empty niche. If God created all life then he specifically created a creature that had to live part of its life in a human host, which hardly corresponds with a god that cares for everyone individually like one of his children.

What he is ultimately getting at is that most creationists (the people he is undoubtedly addressing) tend to point out that god must exist because roses or hummingbirds are so beautiful, but no one says god must exist because there are worms that live in human eyes.
8  
written by Skeeve


login or sign up to comment